March 31, 2009
I saw a very inaccurate test done on TV where temperature tests were conducted comparing sun heated plastic soda bottles filled with CO2 and air. A soda fountain was used to fill a plastic bottle with compressed CO2 while the other was filled with air. Compressed CO2 is quite a bit more dense than air and it seemed like far too much CO2 was used. Naturally the CO2 bottle warmed much faster than the air bottle to the point where the results were extreme. Then it was said that there’s global warming in a nutshell. As far as I can tell, on Earth, atmospheric density has not measurably increased in the last 100 years. Had compressed air and air with miniscule amounts of CO2 been used to equal pressure, it would have been a fair test. The amount of CO2 in the CO2 bottle would have made a good experiment to explain why Venus is warmer than Earth but was grossly inaccurate for Earth conditions. False data is being used to explain away global warming when (scientifically) solar and oceanic cycles are the big players in climate changes. There is a whole other side to the GW argument that is being buried mainly to indoctrinate young people. For the last 20 years Earth has experienced warm oceanic cycles in the Atlantic (AMO) and Pacific (PDO) oceans. That is why those of us in Florida have experienced so may more hurricanes in the last 15 years. The warm Pacific (PDO) cycle began in 1982 and ended in 2007. The warm Atlantic(AMO) usually lags behind the Pacific and started in 1995. Those same cycles happened in the ’30’s-’50’s when Florida was hit far worse than this time. As these warm oceanic cycles shift to cold, there will be cooler times ahead especially in N. America and Europe. The fact is, these are the natural cycles that GOD put into nature to regulate Earth’s temperatures so we can live here. Those pushing “man made climate change” simply want to put God out of the picture. The God I read about in the Bible is very forgiving but does not tolerate those who put themselves above him. If your children start talking about climate change or “going green” they are likely being influenced by these people. They need to be emphatically taught that God is in control, not man. The only way we can stop the agenda of those behind these lies is to make sure we closely pay attention to what is taught to the young people.
March 31, 2009 - 0:16 ET
LONDON (Reuters) – Mexico will cooperate with the United States in sharing intelligence to fight drug trafficking but does not plan joint patrols with U.S. forces, President Felipe Calderon said Monday.
They might see people crossing the border and that would be a awkward situation…since they encourage the illegal invasion of our country
"We do have to work together but that does not imply the joint participation in military operations or even a joint participation of law enforcement agents," Calderon said at a press conference during a state visit to
The Mexican president said forces from both sides of the border should share information to try to stem the flow of illegal drugs and tackle the gangs who supply them.
And probably as soon as we tell them where we are patrolling or share any information with them their corrupt government will share that with the Narco kingpins.
Right and I have some swamp land I will sell you. The only thing high on his agenda is socialism.
Crushing the drug cartels, who arm themselves with smuggled
And now the media just reports it as fact…all the guns come from the
Calderon noted that the
[ in speedy Gonzales voice] Because Mexico is a peaceful country…it is those evil Americans and their insatiable appetite for the coca and the marijuana, and their easy available supply of weapons which the drug cartels who probably secretly work for Estados Unitos big businesses, use to slaughter many of the Mexican people (probably as genocide so we cannot immigrate) who only wish to immigrate to the Estados Unitos for work that those worthless lazy gringos will not do! It is our Land anyway VIVA LA RAZA! VIVA LA RECONQUESTA!...
"Violence and organized crime is not only a problem for
Yeah it is common in the US for people to be beheaded across the street from schools, and for us to not be able to have police chief’s because their average life expectancy is about 3 days…sure happens all the time here…a common problem…why just yesterday I had to step over a beheaded person on my way into the office…and last week those crazy guys and their mortars were trying to kill me on my drive home…I can’t tell you the number of policemen I have seen beheaded lately here in the US.
"It has to do with the fact that our border is the border with the largest drug market in the world and with the main producer and seller of guns in the world," he added.
Yeah nothing to do with the fact that OUR border is shared with a lawless corrupt country that has no control over its’ criminal element. Our drug problem could not have ANYTHING to do with the low priced mountains of drugs that walk across the border every minute of every day. I mean it isn’t as though it is cost prohibitive to buy the stuff. IF they were selling women down there by the truckload (and they probably are) then there would be a market for that too.
This just makes my BLOOD BOIL it is against their law for their citizens to own guns in 90% of cases…they are the ones making, and distributing and selling drugs…THEY ARE THE ONES BREAKING ALL THE LAWS ON THEIR SOIL…but when OUR secretary of state blames US then why would the Mexican president blame anyone but US?
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged last week during a visit to
All our fault…
I am doing the Sam Kinnison Scream again…
So let me get this straight…lets just break it down…
It is illegal for their citizens to own guns, yet they still own them, and use them to kill people (which is yet another good argument for not having gun control laws in the
It is illegal for their citizens make drugs, transport drugs, and sell drugs to the
It is basically NOT illegal for Mexican citizens to possess small amounts or use basically any drugs they can find.
But it is the
The fact that they cannot enforce ANY of their laws, means that we need to enact more laws on our side of the border? This is all just a second amendment attack.
There is one point, to the extent that guns are being trafficked across the border, that is something we do need to address, because that is against OUR law. And we need to enforce border security too, but that is not what the politicians want to do.
Because of our illegal drug use in the
What we freaking need is a demilitarized zone. You know that seems to work well for the 39th parallel over in
Wake UP SHEEPLE!
P.s. did you notice how many times they used the word “joint” and “high” in this article?
March 30, 2009
Guatemala: no gun control laws that I could find
Honduras: no gun control laws that I could find
El Salvador: no gun control laws that I could find
All firearms in Brazil are required to be registered with the state; the minimum age for ownership is 25 and it is generally illegal to carry a gun outside a residence. The total number of firearms in Brazil is thought to be around 17 million with 9 million of those being unregistered. Some 39,000 people died in 2003 due to gun-related injuries nationwide. In 2004, the number was 36,000. Although Brazil has 100 million fewer citizens than the United States, and more restrictive gun laws, there are 25 percent more gun deaths;other sources indicate that homicide rates due to guns are approximately four times higher than the rate in the United States. Brazil has the second largest arms industry in the Western Hemisphere. Approximately 80 percent of the weapons manufactured in Brazil are exported, mostly to neighboring countries; many of these weapons are then smuggled back into Brazil. Some firearms in Brazil come from police and military arsenals, having either been "stolen or sold by corrupt soldiers and officers."
So NONE of these countries could possibly be selling arms to the Mexicans. Likewise China nor Russia could NEVER be selling guns to Mexico. Surely they would not be coming out of Central or South America. I will just add the following for fun:
In late 2007 the European Union lawmakers adopted a legislative report to tighten gun control laws and establish an extensive firearms database. Passed with overwhelming backing, the tough new gun control rules were "hoped to prevent Europe from becoming a gun-friendly culture like the United States.”
I want to share three bullet points. Then a news story from Germany as the perfect example as to why it will never work.
> The tragic shootings in Samson Alabama. Truly a tragic story. The shooter used several different weapons including an SKS (chinese made semi auto approximately 30 caliber gun), an AR-15 (semi auto .223 caliber gun) and a .38 handgun ( a police caliber weapon I might add - that is how they will spin it)
> Top news story right now is the killing of 8 people in a Nursing Home in North Carolina. Tragic awful story. The story quotes that it was a “deer gun” so that is not good. I would like to point out that a "deer gun" is anything from a .243 to a 7mm and range from single shot guns to lever action to bolt action to semi auto, cartridge designs dating from 1830 to 2007.
> Last week Hillary was in Mexico blaming the United States for the drug problem and the arms trafficking in Mexico. So it is our fault that Mexico is on the brink of collapse from the drug lords because of OUR guns.
Guns and ammunition have been strictly banned in Mexico since the notoriously bloody Mexican Revolution nearly 100 years ago. According to gun control advocates, this outright ban on gun ownership should have reduced crime in Mexico—especially gun crime—to virtually zero. Yet, that is clearly not the case.
Clinton says that 90% of guns in Mexico are smuggled in from the United States, a statistic provided by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. In the United States the vast majority of guns are not banned, and in Texas and New Mexico (the two states nearest the bloodshed in Juarez), gun restrictions are almost non-existent
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Talking to Greta Van Susteren:
"...it would inaccurate to absolve ourselves of responsibility or to absolve the Mexicans of responsibility. This is a shared responsibility. We share the border. And as you rightly said, the demand for illegal drugs is what keeps these guys in business. And it's a, you know, multi-billion-dollar, $25-plus billion industry.
The guns that are sold in the United States, which are illegal in Mexico, get smuggled and shipped across our border and arm these terrible drug-dealing criminals so that they can outgun these poor police officers along the border and elsewhere in Mexico.
So we've got to help out here...We can't stand by ...when a lot of the money is laundered in the United States back into the hands of the drug kingpins, and when the weapons have come from our country. So I think recognizing the co-responsibility is just stating the obvious."
So get ready. It is all there in the news. It is a matter of time before the Progressives POUNCE.
Now I want to share parts of another story. This is from March 12th, 2009
German School Shooter Warned Of Attack
WAIBLINGEN, Germany (AP) ―
The 17-year-old gunman who went on a rampage at his former school and killed 15 people before taking his own life gave a warning in an Internet chatroom only hours earlier and said he was "sick of this life," officials said Thursday.
Suspect Tim K. told others in the chat room he planned to attack his school in Winnenden, said Baden Wuerttemburg state Interior Minister Heribert Rech.
Rech said the suspect wrote, "You will hear from me tomorrow, remember the name of a place called Winnenden."
In the first indication of a motive in the shooting, Rech said the teenager told others in the German-language chat room that: "Everyone laughs at me, nobody recognizes my potential."
"I'm serious. ... I have a weapon here," Rech said the youth wrote. "Early tomorrow morning I will go to my former school."
Investigator Siegfried Mahler said authorities had learned that the suspect was treated for depression in 2008, but had no further details.
Despite the high death toll, the shooting could have been worse if the principal of the high school had not been able to warn teachers with a prearranged code over the public address system when the suspect burst into the school.
After the suspect entered the school in Winnenden on Wednesday morning and opened fire, the principal put the emergency plan in effect, quickly broadcasting a coded message to teachers: "Frau Koma is coming," students told German media.
In German the word "amoklauf" is used to describe school shootings, and "koma" is the reverse of the word "amok." Hetger said the coded alert was worked out by German educators after a deadly school shooting in Erfurt in 2002 as a way to warn teachers.
Hetger said that police in Baden-Wuerttemburg had received special training that involved sending small teams into the building in the event of a school shooting, as happened on Wednesday.
He credited this, coupled with the warning from the principal, for preventing further deaths.
Although the gunman shot at the officers as they entered the building, they succeeded in chasing him from the premises.
After he escaped, he hijacked a car and was eventually caught in a police shootout. The rampage ended with 15 victims slain and the assailant taking his own life, authorities said.
Local police spokesman Nik Brenner said that authorities had found 60 shell casings in the school.
The dark-haired teen, shown wearing glasses in pictures on German television, apparently took the weapon from his father's collection of 15 firearms along with a "multitude of ammunition," police said. His father, a businessman, was a member of the local gun club and kept the weapons locked away except for the pistol, which was kept in the bedroom.
So … this in a country with some of the MOST STRICT gun laws in Europe. And apparently this type of thing happens enough that both the schools and the police have trained for it…the article mentions another shooting in 2002 Below is the summary of the gun laws in Germany.
After 1945, the Allied Forces commanded the complete disarming of Germany. Even German police officers were initially not allowed to carry firearms. Private ownership of firearms was not allowed until after 1956. The legal status returned essentially to that of the Law on Firearms and Ammunition of 1928. The regulation of the matter was thoroughly revised in 1972, when the new Federal Weapons Act (Bundeswaffengesetz) became effective.
In Germany the possession of any firearm with a fire energy exceeding 7.5 Joule requires a valid firearms ownership license for any particular weapon. The current Federal Weapons Act adopts a two-tiered approach to firearms licensing.
A firearms ownership license (Waffenbesitzkarte) must be obtained before a weapon can be purchased. Owners of multiple firearms need separate ownership licenses for every single firearm they own. It entitles owners to purchase firearms and handle them on their own property and any private property with property owner consent. On public premises, a licensed firearm must be transported unloaded and in a stable, fully enclosing, locked container. A weapons ownership license does not entitle the owner to shoot the weapon or carry it on public premises without the prescribed container. Firearms ownership licenses are valid three years or less, and owners must obtain mandatory insurance and a means to securely store the weapon on their premises (a weapons locker.) Blanket ownership licenses are sometimes issued to arms dealers.
A number of criteria must be met before a firearms ownership license is issued:
age of consent (18 years for rimfire calibers/21 years for higher calibers) (§ 4 WaffG)
trustworthiness (§ 5 WaffG) -How do they define this I wonder? Member of the correct political party?
personal adequacy (§ 6 WaffG)
expert knowledge (§ 7 WaffG) and
necessity (§ 8 WaffG) (Necessity is automatically assumed present for licensed hunters and owners of a carry permits (Waffenschein)).
Persons who are:
have a record of mental disorder or
are deemed unreliable (which includes people with drug or alcohol addiction histories and known violent or aggressive persons)
are barred from obtaining a firearms ownership license.
Firearms carry permits entitle licensees to publicly carry legally owned weapons, loaded in a concealed or non-concealed manner. A mandatory legal and safety class and shooting proficiency tests are required to obtain such a permit. Carry permits are usually only issued to persons with a particular need for carrying a firearm. This includes licensed hunters, law-enforcement officers, security personnel and persons living under a raised threat-level like celebrities and politicians (not the general public).
The weapons law does not apply to military use of weapons within the Bundeswehr.
By the way MEXICO has very strict gun laws as well.
Mexico has some of the strictest gun laws in the world.
Generally, citizens are restricted by law to:
pistolas (handguns) of .380 Auto or .38 Special revolvers or smaller in either case,
escopetas (shotguns) of 12 gauge or smaller, with barrels longer than 25 inches, and
rifles (rifles) bolt action and semi-auto.
Handguns in calibers bigger than those mentioned above are forbidden from private ownership.
Examples of firearms that are legal for citizens to own include .380 ACP pistols (such as the Glock 25); .38 Special revolvers, 12 gauge shotguns (no short-barreled shotguns are allowed) and rifles in any caliber up to .30 caliber.
Permits for the transportation and use of such non-military caliber firearms are issued for one year terms by SEDENA (Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional) and may be applied for up to 10 firearms, total, for each designated and planned use that is legally authorized. These uses may include hunting or shooting at a club or national competition. Permits are very easy to obtain, but may be only obtained by citizens belonging to a shooting club.
There is only one legally authorized retail outlet in Mexico City: UCAM (Unidad de Comercialización de Armamento y Municiones), run by the Army and able to sell firearms. It is owned by, and is part of, the government. Although there is no legal limit on how many firearms an individual can own, once any individual has purchased ten firearms from the only retail governmental outlet, he cannot get a permit to buy any more. However, private party sales are legal and are largely uncontrolled, and wealthy gun-collecting citizens thus can legally buy more firearms from other private owners.
Collector permits, somewhat analogous to the FFL Category 03 Curio & Relic permits issued in the United States, are easy to obtain from the Mexican Government and allow the ownership of a wide range of firearms, even including military firearms. For those holding collector permits, regular visits by the local military authority to inspect the storage location to make sure it has the necessary security measures to avoid the guns being stolen are a recurring fact of life.
CCW licenses are issued but are hard to obtain for anyone not wealthy and without political connections. In the event that an application is denied, the denial may theoretically be appealed at a District Court, but this never occurs in practice. Prior to 2002, CCW licenses could be obtained authorizing military caliber pistols. However, these CCW licenses were all cancelled, and re-issued to authorize only up to .380 ACP caliber pistolas.
Transportation licenses are required for transporting guns. Transportation must be with the firearm unloaded and in a case. There are no public shooting ranges such as in the U.S. and other countries.
I was raised in one country but my father was born in another. I was not his only child. He fathered several children with a number of women.
I became very close to my mother because my father showed little interest in me. Then my mother died at an early age from cancer. Later in life, questions arose over my real name. My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a reliable birth certificate.
I grow up practicing one faith, but converted to Christianity because this was widely accepted in my country. But I practiced non-traditional beliefs and did not follow mainstream Christianity.
I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.
I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.
I became active in local politics when I was in my 30s and then burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office when I was in my 40s. I had a virtually non-existent resume, very little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful speaker who managed to draw incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy. I was critical of my country in the last war.. But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy. I had a plan on how we could do better. I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.
Mine was a people’s campaign. I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics and was able to gain widespread popular support. I offered the people the hope that together we could change our country and the world.
I spoke on behalf of the downtrodden including persecuted minorities such as Jews, but my actual views were not widely known until after I became my nations leader. However, anyone could have easily learned what I really believed if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with. But they did not.
Then I became the most powerful man in the world. And the world learned the truth.
Who am I? Scroll down for the answer.
WERE YOU THINKING OF SOMEONE ELSE?
Has History Repeated because we have forgotten HISTORY?
I am NOT suggesting that Obama is the same or has the same goals as Hitler, but let the record speak for itself.
March 27, 2009
Ok. First map is 2008 election results by county. Second map is population density by county. Sorry the colors are not the same. I am not saying it is a hard and fast rule, but if you look I think it will become evident to everyone that the more populous an area is the higher the tendency to vote liberal.
Population Density by County
The divide is between urban areas/inner suburbs and suburbs/rural areas. For example, in the 2008 elections, even in "solidly Blue" states, the majority of voters in most rural counties voted for Republican John McCain, with some exceptions. And in "solidly Red" states, a majority of voters in most urban counties (Such as Dallas County, TX) voted for Democrat Barack Obama. And an even more detailed breakdown demonstrates that, in many cases, large cities voted for Obama, but their suburbs were divided.
Red states and Blue states have several demographic differences from each other.
In the 2008 elections both parties received at least 40% from all sizable social and economic demographics, according to exit polling. In 2008, college graduates were split equally; those with postgraduate degrees voted for Obama by a 18% margin. For household income, Obama got a majority of households with less than $50,000 in annual income, and McCain got a households consisting of married couples. McCain held the more suburban and rural areas of both the red and blue states, while Obama received the large majority of the urban city areas in all the states.
A little personal anecdotal data:
I travel a lot for my job. In the past 6 months I have been to North Carolina, Florida, Mississippi, Kentucky, Colorado, Texas, Indiana, and Missouri. Everywhere I go I strike up conversations with folks and I try not to say anything very provocative, but I try to get a sense of what their feeling is as far as the direction of the country. Not one person I have talked to believes that we are headed in the right direction. Now admittedly, these are all working folks. They all have jobs. But it ranges from Factory Workers, Insurance Executives, Business Managers, Folks in the Airport, People in line at the rental car counter, you name it.
I also get cold calls from a wide variety of salesmen in my job. They call from all over the country. I used to just hang up on them, but now when they try to sell me something I tell them that we just can’t do it right now because of the economy and budget cuts and so forth. They begin to tell me all sorts of things and none of them are particularly hopeful. They tell me that they hear that all the time. They tell me about how their company is downsizing etc etc etc. When cold call salesmen start actually talking to you and telling you about the guy in the next cubicle and so forth that is pretty 'out there'.
Now the last thing I want to share is that from where I live and from my perspective life is going on almost completely normally. My area is getting two new restaurants, there are some construction projects that are not government funded, the mall is always busy, the department stores are always busy, restaurants are busy, traffic is bad on Saturdays, I still get credit card offers in the mail, banks still loan money, there are some homes being bought. There are a lot of homes for sale, but prices have not fallen. There have been layoffs at some businesses. The car dealerships are definitely hurting. But nothing else seems to be that much.
I think we are having a Blue State Recession. What sectors are the worst hit? Banking and Finance, Home Sales, Auto Industry. Everything else is somewhat trickledown from that. Housing in the Las Vegas Area, Florida, Southern California,. Factory jobs lost in the Auto Industry mostly in the North states like Michigan and Ohio, Banking and Finance folks losing tons of money along the major money areas of the East Coast.
I know it is not 100% rock solid, I know retirement accounts were just destroyed, all I am saying is that life goes on in most areas of the country for now. But look at the places that were hit hardest, look at where populations are denser, and look at where they vote Democrat…it is a whole lot of the same places.
March 26, 2009
This is the transcript between Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh from today, who probably understand Conservativism and progressivism, statism, liberalism whatever better than about anyone else alive today.
To me this is fascinating stuff.
EIB Conversation: Rush and Levin Talk About "Liberty and Tyranny"
March 25, 2009
RUSH: We welcome to the EIB Network, Mark Levin, who is -- full disclosure here -- a good friend, one of my best; and the author of the just-released and already best seller, Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto. Hello, sir, and welcome to our big and vast network.
LEVIN: You're not kiddin'. How are you, brother?
RUSH: I'm pretty good. Never better. I'm in a foul mood the last couple days, but nothing to do with you.
LEVIN: Cheer up! Cheer up!
RUSH: I'm trying. I'm trying. Look, I don't want to overdo this, but as I said yesterday, people throughout my whole career have said, "What can I read to learn what you know? Where can I go to find the intellectual truths of conservatism?" and I've always had a book list that I give them and I've always had a magazine list and so forth. Your book is now a one-stop shop. Your book... This is the book, not only to read for someone to read themselves, but to give to people while it is... Well, not too technical. And it's got it's intellectual parts, but it is readable, understandable, inspiring. It's a page-turner, which is difficult for a book like this to be.
LEVIN: Well, you know, as I was writing it, we talk frequently, you know, on the weekends I was there and you'd send me an instant message, "F-Lee, what are you doing?" "I'm writing." You know, or, "What are you doing? It's two in the morning." "I'm writing," because, you know, I have full-time jobs and this is the only time I could do and that's part of the reason it took so long.
RUSH: Now, you weren't just writing.
LEVIN: Well, I was thinking.
RUSH: There's a notes section. You were researching.
RUSH: You could have written a book that just regurgitates what's in your heart and what's in your mind, but you have backed it up here with the thoughts of the Founders, with empirical evidence and proof of what's in your heart and what's in your mind, and that's the work. I mean, anybody can tell anybody what they think. To go out and get backup for it is what took the time. And full disclosure, as I said yesterday: you worked on this for a year and a half. There were times I know that it was arduous, but all the hard work has paid off. Believe me. Here's how I want to start with you on this.
LEVIN: Yes, sir.
RUSH: I -- even now at age 58 -- still consider myself naive, 'cause throughout my childhood and my adult life, I just accepted that everybody living in America loved our country and appreciated the whole concept of America and understood it: freedom, liberty, American exceptionalism. My opinion of this wasn't due to nationalism. It wasn't because, you know, I put a pin on my lapel or 'cause I was born here or any of that. It was rooted in the way that I was raised, and then in the things that I learned, my appreciation for this country and what it is, how unique and rare it is in the whole history of human civilization. So I still have lots of difficulty today intellectually understanding -- I get it emotionally, but I have difficulty intellectually understanding -- people natively born in this country who hate it, who want to destroy it, who want to remake it in an image that will cause it to not be what it has always been, which is the single greatest outpost and location for prosperity and security the world has ever seen. Can you help me to understand why there are people who hate this country and want to tear it down?
LEVIN: The key is to understand that there are people who are of that mind-set -- and if we don't understand it, and we just think this is an academic debate or they're just slightly liberal or what have you, we're going to be devoured by it. We need to understand that these people do not share our view of liberty and individuality. They reject the Declaration of Independence, which talks about unalienable rights
RUSH: Who are these people?
LEVIN: These people are what I call the statists. They are not liberals because liberal in the classical sense is the opposite of authoritarian, and I refuse to allow them to steal the language and use the language to attack us. You even hear Obama talking about "investments." These aren't investments. It's nationalizing the private sector. It's massively increasing taxes to confiscatory levels. We have to deny them the distortion of the language and speak the truth -- and, look, here's the problem. They have abandoned the principles of the founding. Conservatism represents the founding principles. That's who we are. We embrace the Declaration of Independence. We revere the Constitution of the United States. They try to evade the Constitution and undermine it and construct something that's expedient, that advances their political agenda, which we cringe at. We need to understand who these people are, but, frankly, I started writing this book because we need to understand who we are, that we need to have confidence. Because we have some people teaching the abandonment of conservatism or trying to rewrite conservatism or trying to create some weird hybrid, and I'd just as soon stick with Edmund Burke and Hamilton and Jefferson and Madison because I happen to think they're smarter than these people.
RUSH: Well, I'm going to get into the internecine conflicts in the Republican Party, the conservative movement in due course in our discussion here. But what I gather from what you're saying is, the motivations of these people really aren't necessary, all we have to do and understand is that we gotta beat them.
LEVIN: Well, we needed to understand that their motivations are not good, that they're destructive. I talk about the civil society, as have others in the past. The civil society is what we call organized liberty or the social compact, and there are various elements to it, and this is the heart of conservatism. You know, that man has a spirit, that each man and woman is unique, that we have duty to promote our unalienable rights and to protect them, that we have a duty to our families and ourselves, to take care of ourselves, to contribute to charity, that we have a duty to support a just and righteous law that is stable and predictable. And I go into some of these things and what the statist does is, they believe in human experimentation. I'm not talking about Mengele here, I'm talking about society and turning it on its head, and this is why Edmund Burke was so crucial.
He explained the difference between change is reform, which is what we conservatives believe in, reform that promotes and preserves the civil society, and change is radical innovation that destroys the civil society, that destroys the culture. And this is what we are fighting off. So people say we always say no. You're damn right we say no to destroying this society! But we have a lot of yeses to say, too, about liberty and free enterprise and all the other things that are one linked to the other -- and if I might make a footnote, too. I keep hearing, "Well, there's the social conservatives, the free market conservatives, and the national security conservatives." No, there are not. In a civil society you must have a moral order. Right versus wrong, good versus evil, just versus unjust, and means versus ends. They're not the same thing, and when we talk about moral order, you must have a moral order to have a rule of law, for the free market to work, to advance national security. There are not three branches to conservatism; there is Conservatism.
RUSH: And it doesn't need to be refined or reformed. It doesn't need to be remade or rebuilt.
LEVIN: Well, why would we surrender our core principles that have served this nation so well, that have served humanity so well? I mean, Americans have contributed so enormous to mankind. Why would we surrender those principles to these politicians who are only in office on a temporary basis, who are advancing their own political careers and their fairly radical agenda? Why would we make peace with people, make peace with such philosophy? Why wouldn't we take our case -- be confident in our case and take it -- to the American people? We can link it to current events, we can promote policies through it, but we can't promote policies that are not based on sound philosophy.
RUSH: You mention a lot about the founding and you quote John Adams frequently in the book. One of the quotes that I like from John Adams -- and I'm paraphrasing this, but -- he said that the Founders had written the Constitution for a religious and a moral people, that the document wouldn't work for people outside those realms. So is it safe to say that those who oppose the Constitution are afraid of it, they don't like the concept of morality, they don't like the concept of a natural order of things, natural law, this kind of thing?
LEVIN: This is a great point. First of all, let's go to the Declaration first. The Founding Fathers created a society, and that's what they created in the Declaration of Independence, founded on natural law, divine providence, God-given natural law, alien rights. The only thing that makes life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness unalienable is the belief in a Creator, not the belief in man or some government. Man and government can't, in the end, confer these rights or legitimately deny them. This is a huge difference we have with the statists, whether the modern statists or past statists. They believe rights are something to be rationed. If you agree with them, they give you rights. If you don't agree with them, they take rights away. They believe that they're all-powerful. We don't. We believe they're earthly.
This is a huge difference between us and the statists. When you watch Obama doing his press conferences or Pelosi, these people sound like they're God! I mean, they think they're God. "We're going to do this," and they also exploit something. Man is imperfect. Every religion will tell you that man is imperfect. So man's institutions aren't perfect, and what the statist does is he exploits that. He tries to create this phony notion of a utopian state where, if you'll surrender your will, surrender your liberty, surrender your property -- more and more of it over time, to them -- they will make the impossible possible, the unequal equal. And what they really will do is destroy your humanity, because they're not about humanity; they're about government. And that's why we need to call them statists.
RUSH: Now, okay, let's talk. But the statists and their voters. I've always thought they're two different people. You've got the Obamas and the Pelosis, the Barney Franks, all the Washington statist elite, if you will -- and the statehouse, all the states, statist elites. But let's look at their voters. How many of their voters -- how many of the people who are fully enraged and angry on their fringe blogs, how many of them -- are actually of the same belief that the leaders of this statism are, in belief of it, or how many are just sheep? And therefore if they're sheep -- if they're not as committed and they don't understand, really, what they're voting for and what it leads to -- are they salvageable?
LEVIN: You know, many of them are what I call malcontents. They're victims. They think they are. They always have agreements. They don't look inside. They don't analyze their own lives. I write about this, too. They don't take responsibility for their own situations. They don't know how because they refuse to look beyond their own situations. They don't know how to prosper in the freest, most generous, most benevolent society ever established on the face of the earth. And so they feel the rest of us shouldn't survive or can't survive in a similar society. They're the malcontents. They're what I call the drones, what de Tocqueville referred to as -- my phrase -- these drone-like characteristics where more and more of them surrender their independence, their human sensibilities to the state. They want to be told what to do. And then there's the elitist side of this.
It's academia where you have professors and teachers who get a sinecure from the government, and what are they doing? Well, not everyone. I'm talking about the rule, not the exception. They are promoting this quiet counterrevolution in the classroom against the civil society, against our country, same thing with Hollywood, here you have people who luxuriate in the most magnificent society on the face of earth. They have fame; they have fortune. Nobody bothers them. They can do whatever they want, say whatever they want, and yet they act as if they're revolutionaries, when in fact they're not. And they have enormous influence in the political process because of their wealth and their ability to contribute and affect the media. Are they salvageable? Well, we won't know if we don't try our way. If we keep doing these half measures and create clutter and doubting ourselves rather than have confidence and articulate our positions and do it with our friends and neighbors and in our neighborhoods, well, we'll never know if we can reach these people.
RUSH: So it makes no sense to you, in a political sense, let's say the Republican Party is the home of conservatism, just theoretically or hypothetically for a moment. It makes no sense to you to accept publicly some of their premises so as to attract them and then when we get them, start to work on them to change their minds?
LEVIN: No. What we need to do is challenge the language and the content of what the statist does. And the statist is extremely manipulative, and they will deceive. You can see they're politicians. They deceive, and they want to buy votes, they'll change their positions on a dime because, really, they march at a relatively standard pace. Right now they're marching faster than in the past. But they're incremental and persistent and they have their goals in mind. And too often we conservatives are fighting with each other, over, "Well, should we do this? Should we do that?" In other words, we're tweaking on the edges. We're debating over nonsense. We're allowing people who claim to be conservative to demoralize conservatives.
We have nothing to be demoralized about. Let me tell you something. You said it a hundred thousand times. This is the greatest nation on the face of earth, and we cheerlead for it, and they attack it. We love this society. We love the Declaration. We love the Constitution. We love what it's brought forth. We love the capitalist system with its imperfections. Of course it has imperfections, and that's the capitalist system itself, deals with that. The other side wakes up in the morning on the attack. They reject the Constitution and evade it day in and day out. They reject the founding principles and evade them day in and day out. They want to recreate our society, and that is what we're up against
RUSH: Mark Levin, the author of Liberty and Tyranny, is our guest here, and we will continue our discussion right after this obscene profit time-out here on the EIB Network.
RUSH: We are back with Mark Levin, who, by the way, is the host, as many of you know, of his own radio talk show, syndicated nationally. We have the same flagship station, WABC AM 77 in New York. Mark, you'll get a kick out of this, I checked my e-mail during the break and I just found this note. Subject line: "'Interview awesome.' I was stopped at a stoplight when it began, I saw a friend who I know to be conservative, I rolled down the window and I yelled at her, I said, 'Turn on the radio.' She said, 'I already am.' I just ordered four copies of Levin's book."
LEVIN: Oh, wow. That's terrific.
RUSH: Well, this is a best-seller. You know, a lot of people are going to credit the wrong things for the success of this book, such as its publicity. You can't get where you're going to get without publicity here, but it's the book itself. There is a hunger for this in a concise way. Folks, this is not a large book, it's 256 pages, but it's not large. It's a book that's jam-packed. This has the answer for everything you've asked yourself about yourself, and why you believe what you believe, and it also has at the end -- we'll talk about this when we get closer to it -- a modicum of steps that people can take. Now, Mark, I'm serious about this question. I happened to just coincidentally run across Barry Goldwater's book The Conscience of a Conservative.
RUSH: I read it, parts of it, and of course everything in it, yeah, yeah, yeah, I know, I know, I know, I know. And then I recall that we had Ronald Reagan for two terms, landslide majorities, and then I recall that we elected the House of Representatives, Republican control, 1994, largely on a conservative Contract with America. Here's Goldwater's book, here's your book, here's all of these real life experiences -- Reagan. Why do we have to keep re-teaching this? Why is it that people who read this stuff 30 years ago, 40 years ago, vote for it 20 years ago, can be so easily turned against it?
LEVIN: Because tyranny is persistent. Tyranny has existed since the beginning of man. Liberty takes people to be resolute, it takes some thinking, it takes some proper education and understanding, and it takes competence. Tyranny takes brute force and emotion and propaganda, and so it is we who have to be resolute.
RUSH: If freedom is the natural yearning of the human spirit as endowed by Our Creator, as you said earlier, why does it take work?
LEVIN: Because tyranny is something -- you know, not everybody wants to promote liberty for everybody. I want to read you the back, and this will answer it, Abraham Lincoln's quote on the back of the cover of the book.
RUSH: Okay, can you do it in one minute?
LEVIN: I can do it in one minute. I found this right after I started the book. "We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some, the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name -- liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names -- liberty and tyranny." The slave owner thought he was promoting liberty, theoretically, but he wasn't. He was a tyrant. And let me tell you something, those people who want to enslave us today by small steps and a thousand different regulations and taxes, they're following the root of a soft tyranny. That's what de Tocqueville called it and de Tocqueville was right.
RUSH: Mark Levin is with us, and we've gotta take another EIB obscene profit time-out here in mere seconds, but again the title of the book is Liberty and Tyranny, and we've got much more to discuss here, we'll do it after this brief time-out. Sit tight. Back before you know it.
RUSH: We're back with our remaining moments with Mark Levin, the author of the book, Liberty and Tyranny. And, if the bookstore is sold out, fear not, there are more being printed. The book is exceeding all expectations except mine.
RUSH: Quick question here. You were just talking. You were just quoting Lincoln on the word liberty and how it can be defined in a bunch of different ways. Let's relate this to something happening right before our very eyes at this very moment. Liberals today, from the Obama administration on down, are easily and successfully confusing liberty with greed and greediness. Libs think that men exchanging goods and services freely for greed-on market prices, is greed -- and it is not. It is liberty. In fact, it is the liberals, the left -- the statists, as you call them -- who are practicing greed today, printing their own money, bankrupting the country, spending other people's money for their causes. So how do we arrive at this moment where the exercise of market-economic liberty is considered greed?
LEVIN: Well, first of all, people need to understand that the greed comes from government. The government wants to take 60%, 70% of what you earn at all levels of government, and it hasn't earned a thing. So here's the way we need to understand it. Labor. Labor is the time you spend working, whether it's an intellectual pursuit or a hands-on type pursuit. You have a finite amount of time on earth. So this is precious time. This is your liberty, your time that you're spending to earn this income. So when somebody says that you've earned too much after working as you have using all your abilities to do what you do, to create a comfortable living for yourself, and somebody in the government tells you, "Well, that's not good enough" -- and they want to take your money not for the legitimate purposes of government, as stated in the Constitution, but to redistribute wealth or some other outrageous Marxist-type theory, socialist-type theory -- they are stealing literally time out of your life, your liberty that you spent earning this money, earning this private property legitimately. We need to explain that the free market is the most transformative of economic systems, and it fosters creativity and inventiveness. It produces all these industries and products and services that the statist wants to control and tax. The statist creates nothing. The food Obama has was created by capitalism. The suit that he wears when he does these press conferences, he can thank capitalism, not a single bureaucrat. The car that he drives or that's driven for him -- the helicopter, the jet he takes -- all of it is a creation of capitalism.
RUSH: The teleprompter.
LEVIN: No government bureaucrat and no politician. You know, people need to look around, because liberty permeates. It's so broad, it's so wide that when you're born into it, a lot of times you don't recognize it and you think it's going to be here forever. Aspects of it will, but it's going to be severely curtailed if those who do not respect liberty and do not respect private property rights and do not respect the labor that somebody applies to a skill or whatever and earns his own money, that liberty is going to be severely diminished. Liberty is precious, and that is what we want to defend.
RUSH: Couple more things before our time "perspires."
RUSH: The internecine battles in the conservative movement now for primacy, supremacy, leadership, and so forth, as I look at this, I see it as a problem we first have to deal with before we even take on the statists, because we've got several on our side who are siding with the statists, at least on the basis of accepting some of their premises and then affecting them on the margins, on the corner, and all of these people love to call themselves moderates. Now, Mark, the one thing about this is you'll never find, as I've said, are books in the library, "Great Moderates in American History." And one of the reasons is, they're not passionate. They are not passionate in beliefs, and they do not advance ideas. The only time these moderate so-called conservatives -- and we don't need to mention names here 'cause it's not necessary. Everybody knows who they are. The most passionate they get is when attacking the traditional conservatives that you have described today and in your book. Where's this going?
LEVIN: The truth is, the truth is, they're largely irrelevant. Most of the people don't know who they are. They write in liberal publications. They write for themselves; they speak to themselves. They have not had an impact. But they're not only abandoning the only principles by which our society can exist as free and secure and prosperous, but they're urging others to abandon them, too. So to the extent that people listen to them -- or, frankly, that we bring them up -- they are demoralizing and petty at a time when we must understand and embrace conservatism. What I try to do in this book, when I took on the task of writing it, is, "I don't want a superficial talking point book." I started from the beginning. I went back to some of the great classics and philosophers, and I questioned myself. "Why am I conservative? Why do I believe these things? Who are we? Why does the statist not believe what we believe? Why is he so cynical and destructive of our society, and what can we do about it?" So I find these folks that want to surrender or abandon our principles or come up with some weird hybrids and so forth, and I find them to be clutter, for the most part, and frankly irrelevant to the grassroots.
RUSH: All right, the last chapter, the epilogue, is entitled, "A Conservative Manifesto." I'm going to ask you what I always get when explaining these things to people, "Okay, what can I do as an average citizen? Beyond vote, what can I do?
LEVIN: The first thing you can do, the question I always get is, "What can we do?" The first thing you can do is stop saying "we" and say "I." What you can say is a hell of a lot. If you're a grandparent talk to your grandchildren, if you're a parent, talk to your children. You need to educate them and inform them. The fact that most of your kids and mine go to these government schools doesn't mean you don't have a role in their lives. You have the most prominent and important role of anybody. Teach them these principles, understand them. Be confident. Teach them the confidence and you should have the confidence to talk to your neighbors or at a social event or a grocery store. You have these kids when they go to sleep, when they wake up, when they're eating dinner, when you're taking them to the mall or to a movie or to see a friend. We are a bigger army of advocates than ACORN can ever be. We are a bigger army of advocates than any other army out there. If each of us were to use our intelligence and use our ability to articulate these principles -- which I hope I will help to promote here -- they cannot stop us.
March 25, 2009
First Let’s review:
New Mexico Democratic Governor Bill Richardson, nominated for Commerce Department Secretary. He withdrew on January 4 after it emerged that he was the subject of a Grand Jury investigation for influence peddling, due to his awarding of a $1.5 million state contract to political contributors.
Former South Dakota Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, nominated for Health and Human Services Secretary. He withdrew on February 3, admitting that he had failed to pay more than $100,000 in taxes on a car and driver provided by a friend and on consulting fees after he left the Senate.
Nancy Killefer, former Clinton Staffer, nominated for Deputy Director at the Office of Management and Budget and Chief Performance Officer withdrew on February 3 because of a lien against her home for failure to pay unemployment tax for household help. Ironic that she can afford household help - something most of us Americans can't - and then doesn't pay the taxes her party trumpets. Certainly not anyone you want in charge of managing the public's money.
Hilda Solis, nominated for Labor Secretary, was confirmed (Whew Made it chalk up a win for team Obama, but I wish she hadn’t) on February 11 even though her husband had liens against his business going back 16 years. He paid the full $6,400 owed a day before her confirmation hearing. Wouldn't that be nice if the average American could pretend to have nothing to do with their spouse's finances?
New Hampshire Senator Judd Gregg, Obama's second nomination for Commerce Department secretary. Apparently the only Republican nominated to a high-level position by Obama, he withdrew on February 11 because of philosophical differences (Probably because he didn’t want to associate with Terrorists, Socialists, Felons, and Tax Evaders) with the Obama administration over its advocacy of a massive stimulus plan. Judd had once called for elimination of the Department of Commerce. Judd was one of very few Obama nominees who withdrew due to legitimate reasons.
Timothy Geithner, (Turbo Tax Tim, Holder of the Elfin Ring of power – sorry looks like an elf to me-, smartest guy in the room and the only guy for the job) nominated and confirmed on February 24 for Treasury Secretary. Geithner failed to pay $34,000 in self-employment taxes while he worked at the International Monetary Fund from 2001 to 2004. Yet he was still confirmed because Democrats said his position was too important to be left unfilled any longer.
Kansas Democratic Governor Kathleen Sebelius was nominated on March 2 as Obama's second choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. So far, no back tax problem has emerged, but she does have one of the most extreme partisan positions on abortion of any politician in the country; which (hopefully) may cause trouble with her confirmation.
Former Obama campaign worker Susan Tierney, the leading candidate for Deputy Secretary of Energy, dropped out on March 3 without citing a reason. I smell a Nanny Issue or Tax problems…
Jane Garvey, reportedly Obama's top choice for Deputy Secretary of Transportation, also dropped out on March 3, reportedly for financial reasons. Did those reasons include owing back taxes?
Former Washington Democratic Governor Gary Locke. Third times a Charm - Nominated on March 5, for Secretary of Commerce after Bill Richardson and Judd Gregg withdrew. So far he appears to be sailing through to confirmation, but Frontpage Mag points out he was involved in Chinagate with former Clinton Commerce employee John Huang. Huang wrote a $1,000 check to Locke and co-sponsored fundraising events that netted $30,000 in 1996 alone.
Annette Nazareth, who was to be nominated for Treasury Deputy Secretary, abruptly announced on March 5 she was stepping aside for "personal reasons." As in “I don’t pay my taxes?”
Caroline Atkinson, nominated for Undersecretary of International Affairs, withdrew on March 5 as well. Because of failure to pay back taxes? We will never know.
Dr. Sanjay Gupta, Obama's first pick for Surgeon General, withdrew on March 5 without citing a reason. (it may be possible that he had some morals?)
Former Dallas Democratic Mayor Ron Kirk, nominated for Trade Representative, failed to pay $10,000 in back taxes for speaking fees over three years. He faced Senate questioning on March 9 over it, but is expected to win confirmation. $2,600 of the back taxes was due to deducting $17,382 worth of basketball tickets; he was unable to provide proof of business purposes for those tickets. Most Americans can't afford $17,382 in baseball tickets, much less have a business to deduct the cost from. Kirk also took overly large deductions for a used TV he gave to charity, and inflated accounting and tax preparation fees. He has agreed to pay $9,975 in back taxes from 2005-2007.
And then this from the AP just now:
WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's pick for the No. 2 post at the Environmental Protection Agency is removing himself from consideration.
Jon Cannon, a professor of environmental law at the University of Virginia, says he is withdrawing as the nominee for deputy EPA administrator because of scrutiny surrounding the America's Clean Water Foundation. Cannon once served on the now-defunct organization's board of directors.
The EPA's inspector general's concluded in 2007 that the foundation mismanaged $25 million in EPA grants
There are several job vacancies in high positions at the treasury, and the fact that the Democrats cannot find a single person qualified to run the department during this economic crisis is "shameful," as characterized by liberal former Federal Reserve chairman Paul Volcker and economic advisor to Obama. Geithner has been Treasury Secretary for over five weeks and has yet to name a single top deputy or assistant secretary that made it through confirmation (IS anyone else but me concerned that Obama and Geithner apparently do not know anyone who is scrupulous?).
There have been a few nominees who appeared to have withdrawn for legitimate reasons. But due to the large number of other nominees withdrawing for failure to pay back taxes, some will wonder if that was the real reason - which is an unfair stigma to put on the honest nominees who withdrew; that is, assuming that they didn’t withdraw because of Taxes...
What we are seeing is the results of a generation that has grown up without a base in Principles and Values. These folks are all Moral Relativists, and Secular Progressives and they clearly believe not only are they smarter than the rest of us, but the rules do not apply to them at all. Is the fact that Democrats took back over the Congress and the White house with these kinds of Character flaws an indication of how Gullible Americans are, or is it an indication that the country really is full of a bunch of Moral Relativist Neo-Socialists? I am praying we are just gullible, because that can be cured.
March 23, 2009
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises ... I say after [the term of] this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot."
This is not my dream of what some future politician would say; Henry Morgenthau said this on the Congressional Record in May 1939 (what we would call the House Ways & Means Committee). Henry Morgenthau was the U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Roosevelt. He was in charge of implementing Roosevelt’s New Deal policies and after
seven years they had produced no positive changes in the economy. In fact, by May 1939, the national unemployment rate had once again climbed above the 20th percentile.
March 20, 2009
It is the newest official member of the administration’s Blog.
He likes to be called TOTUS, Teleprompter of the
Seriously, at this point as much as he uses this thing, and as is now proven he will read ANYTHING off of it (just like Anchorman) what is the difference between Obama and the local Nighttime news anchor?
I think he is the Anchorman Of the United States….I think the real president is the one writing every comment. Probably the same people who wrote those two books that bear his name.
Who is behind the curtain typing in everything he says?
Is it possible that the morning conference calls that we all assumed go from the white house to MSNBC actually go FROM MSNBC to the White House?
We did not elect a President, we elected a News Caster.
Need proof? He didn’t take it on Leno and he made a crack about the special Olympics. He didn’t take it to that Town Hall meeting and he compared the economy to a suicide bomber…
March 19, 2009
There is only a 7 pt. difference between Strongly Approve & Strongly Disapprove, the gap or index is getting smaller between the two. I think Americans are beginning to wake up. Also from Rasmussen: "Overall, 56% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President’s performance so far while 43% disapprove." It was in the upper 60's not to long ago. Keep in mind that on Friday March 20th he'll have been in office 60 days. I believe it was reported that Obama had a lower approval rating in the same period of time than Bush did in his first term. Now watch what OBama does when his numbers lower, he goes on a PR trip, this time Jay Leno. It will be interesting to see what his numbers are after his Leno PR Blitz. Also, notice that he leaves Washington to do these Blitzes, he is trying to temporarily disassociate himself from Washington. "Hey, I'm just a regular guy...", maybe Ellen DeGeneres will show up and they'll have a dance party or a spontaneous "Dancing with the Stars". Remember, he's a "Rock Star". As reported on MSNBC when announced his candidacy for president.
Obama says immigration reform needed, illegal immigrants should have path to citizenship
By Associated Press
5:33 PM CDT, March 18, 2009
COSTA MESA, Calif. (AP) — President Barack Obama says the United States is a nation of immigrants but the country must have control over its borders.
Speaking at a town hall meeting in
Obama says it's important for longtime illegal immigrants to have a path to citizenship so they can join unions and get protection from employers who exploit them. He says those illegal immigrants could earn
Obama says residents who have put down roots should be able to come out of hiding.
--Does anyone remember Sam Kinison? The Comedian…. Remember how he used to scream in rage, fury, and horror? I just did that….
March 18, 2009
CNN) -- As the tide of outrage over AIG bonuses continued unabated Wednesday, a congressional committee became the epicenter of the issue as Edward Liddy, CEO and chairman of the troubled insurer, prepared to answer questions about executive bonuses.
Rep. Barney Frank says the bailout has resulted in "de facto nationalizing" for companies that received it.
On Wednesday's "American Morning," Rep. Barney Frank, who chairs the House Finance Committee, shared what was legally and legislatively within the government's power on recovering the AIG bonuses and reforming the whole financial incentive system.
Kiran Chetry, CNN anchor: When he appears before your committee today, what type of assurances are you guys seeking from Mr. Liddy with regard to these bonuses?
Rep. Barney Frank, D-Massachusetts: Well, I don't have a lot of confidence in Mr. Liddy's view at this point. When he said that first he couldn't get the money back because they had contractual rights but also that he was worried about not retaining them, it left me unconvinced he's really going to be trying.
The notion that we want to retain these people, that we want to pay the people who messed it up in the first place so they don't leave, is just backward to me. I think we would probably be better off if they did leave
Yeah trust me Barney, we don’t want to retain you and for some reason we are stuck with you
We are going to ask him to fully be cooperative in our effort, but I think the federal government has to take the lead on the lawsuits. We own this company in effect, and we're not asking that these bonuses be rescinded because we have lent money to the company. I believe we are saying as the owners of the company, we do not think we should be paying bonuses or should have paid bonuses to people who made mistakes, who were incompetent.
Never mind those pesky legally binding contracts…of course if you want to pee on the constitution what is a little contract here or there to stop you from doing what you want?
Chetry: Right. You said this yesterday, as well, "We own it." We own 80 percent of AIG, but [the government] seems to be caught in this purgatory ... where you own and you're paying for bailing out this company, yet you don't have any say in the decisions it makes.
Frank: Well, I want to change that.
Chetry: I mean, fully nationalized.
Frank: It is de facto nationalizing, in the sense of the ownership. Understand, this is not, by the way, part of the congressionally voted rescue plan initially. The Federal Reserve has power under a statute that dates from 1932 that most of us weren't aware of. It hasn't been used for many years.
Really you are chairman of the Finance committee and you didn’t know it? With all your staff? I found it in about 5 seconds on Wikipedia!!!
And in September, the chairman of the Federal Reserve, Mr. (Ben) Bernanke, came to Congress and announced to us [about the bailout]. We weren't asked or consulted. We were told that he was lending $85 billion to AIG under this authority. Now, since then, when we have voted, we have learned how to put tough conditions on, and so I do want to reassure people.
Liar. The TARP bailout had ZERO oversight in it…NADA…NONE….ZILCH…LIAR
Because I think people need to know that, is this a recurring pattern or not? We will not see this happening again. We have banks that got money now that are getting money or just got money that want to give it back because we've been too tough. And I'm proud of that.
Too tough? Too TOUGH… Hardly…it has nothing to do with TOUGH it has to do with them not wanting you to get your nasty grubby little fat fingers on the rest of their money…they do not WANT TO BE BEHOLDEN TO YOU. They want to still be able to make money THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE SLAVES
But we do have this problem where, under that statute from 75 years ago, the Federal Reserve gave the money without any conditions. I still believe that we have a right legally to recover this, because we can assert our ownership rights and say, yes, you may have had a contractual right to a bonus but your rotten performance means you should forfeit it.
Shows what he knows…who said the bonus was performanced based? They were RETENTION bonuses. And it is a way to limit tax exposure. Rule put into law by Clinton and the Democrats in Congress
Chetry: When your colleagues in the Senate moved to prevent bonuses in the stimulus bill last month, they made an exception. The Senate made an exception for pre-existing contracts, which, effectively exempted AIG. So, you talk about these strings that are attached. Why did that happen?
Yeah lets see the lies he spins to get out of this one
Frank: Because there is a problem with doing things retroactively legislatively. And you have to hear -- understand the distinction between legislative and legal. No, I don't think the American people want a situation where Congress, whenever it feels a contract shouldn't have been signed, passes a law to abrogate that past contract. That's why I am saying we should assert our ownership rights.
Uh huh. Right. Sure.
I want to invalidate these contracts and say, look, we are the owners of this company. Yes, contracts were signed with you that I wish hadn't been signed. But given how badly you performed, I want to argue that they did not perform under the contract.
The difference would be having a precedent that I don't think the American people want, even if for this situation, we'd all like to see it different, where whenever Congress thinks a contract should be abrogated, it should be abrogated. So, I'm talking about a legislative abrogation of a contract. I'm talking about a lawsuit as an owner of the company [that wants to reward a] bonus, we ought to fine you for messing it up.
OH I SEE not that you are going to make a law to take away their contract, you are just going to decide to take away their contract using a law that is not made yet…gotcha
Chetry: I think people are asking, why now? Why did it get stripped from the stimulus bill in closed-door negotiations between the White House and the House?
Frank: Because that provision would not have worked. You could not have legislatively canceled them out. You say you hear me, but you're not -- I mean, look we all wish a lot of things could be different. I wish when the Federal Reserve had initially done this, they'd done it differently.
Not my fault says the congressman.. we cant do it legislatively before hand, but we can just take it without a law after the fact. I get it, I get it. It was the Fed Reserve. And Tim Geithner before he was annoited by the Messiah. His past sins have been forgiven…gotcha…right on
We have a constitutional provision against the abrogation of contracts. That's why, again, I don't think it works to simply pass a law. We could pass a law tomorrow and say those contracts are no good. I don't think it would hold up in court. What I think can hold up in court is for us to say, "You do not deserve those bonuses under the contract because you performed so badly."
And by the way, that's one of the things I've been working on for several years. It's to go after this whole financial incentive system that they have, whereby if you are working in one of these companies, and you take a risk, and it pays off, you get compensated. If you take a risk and it blows up in everybody's face, you don't lose anything. We have to put an end to this kind of one-way street, heads they win, tails they break even.
I want to pick winners and loser dammit! Me! I am in Charge. I am important. I am a MAN…A MAN do you hear me? And I know lots about running a business even though I have been in congress most of my adult life
One of the things we're going to demand is the names of these people. They should not be allowed to hide behind anonymity. We will insist on knowing who they are and publishing those names.
I know some names…not that it will help.